That was more of a mining disaster than a nuclear power disaster and would have had similar cleanup issues if the heavy metal contamination was non-radioactive.

Mining disasters are frequently rife with issues of irresponsibility and expenses dumped on taxpayers, poor government oversight due to local corruption, and issues of environmental justice (i.e. the fact that polluting industries tend to seek out poor communities to avoid NIMBYism and to get locals to look the other way when a "job creator" is coming to town). The potential issues of racism and state & federal governments taking any opportunity to shaft Native Americans are just a cherry on top in this case -- but largely irrelevant to the question of the safety of nuclear power.

While he whitewashes the morality of the issue, Jared Diamond's "Collapse" has a pretty good introduction to all the horrors the mining industry creates and why.

Now, that's a bit too far. Hanford was contaminated long before we had any good understanding of how to properly contain radioactive waste, had any solid idea of what kind of harm it could do, and had any kind of national environmental regulation that established standards for proper handling. Oh, and it was a military site which meant that it would have likely been handled incredibly irresponsibly due to the lack of accountability that secrecy provides them.

You should consider whether or not in the current framework with a civilian project forced to obey modern standards whether or not such a mess is likely to occur again and whether it's likely to occur in a manner that creates such a nightmare in the first place. It may still be reasonable to conclude, "No," but you really should hold up Hanford as the measuring stick for what can be done over 50 years (and an entire environmental movement) later.

Yes, but the difference is that isn't not all in a highly soluble form with a high surface area. This is why mine tailings are such a huge source of acid and metal contamination. What would take millions of years to expose to streams and waters via natural erosion is ground up and dumped straight into waterways by industry. The resulting contamination is much higher than you would find by running water over the top of the material before processing.

Do comets count? How "off" of an orbit do you have to be not to count (and yet for Pluto to count).

Where's the big deal in Pluto not being a planet?

Not many, for much the same reasons that polls show that white consider us to be living in a post-racial worlds while nearly everyone else in America disagrees strongly.

You don't generally notice discrimination if you're not the one being discriminated against, since most of it will happen out of your sight. You may have some awareness that "some people" still act that way, but it will seem remote to you and likely overblown.

Does no one remember what it was like to be a geek or nerd in high school? Sometimes people act against you with open, gleeful hostility, but most of the time, it's just a subtle undercurrent of preconceived notions and dismissive attitudes. Guess what? It doesn't really go away when we get older. It just happens to different people.

Define "planet" in a meaningful, non-arbitrary way that does not include dozens of other bodies not traditionally recognized as planets in our solar system (e.g. Ceres). It's believed the Kuiper belt has hundreds of dwarf planets. You want to promote them all just to not have to give up a mnemonic from childhood?

Woah, woah, woah. How do you determine what is and isn't a luxury item within the same category?

Let's take food, for example. So caviar is taxable, but what else is? Fatty tuna? Well, it's pretty expensive, but where do you draw the line between taxable tuna and not taxable tuna? Is there a tuna chart or fat percentage? You mention expensive wines, but where is the line on what's "expensive?" $100 bottles? $50 bottles? $20 bottles? Anything that doesn't come in a box or a 4-pack? Is organic food a luxury? Is meat? Do you tax steak at a Longhorn's different from Waffle House? Hell, are all restaurants luxuries or not, since people can just cook at home?

From the sound of things, you are creating a tax code far more detailed, controlling, and onerous than our existing income tax code. Furthermore, will its dividing lines move with inflation? How do you set up POS check-out terminals to handle this? What about private sellers (e.g. garage sales & eBay)? Etc. etc.

Compounding interest, my friend. Those who can afford to save will see their money grow, and even if they get taxed the same later, they still had a chance to grow in wealth far faster than someone who had to spend it all on necessities.

Because you're dead. You don't really matter anymore. What does matter is whether your kids should be given a windfall of wealth and power without having to do anything to earn it. You may have worked quite hard for your money and thus deserved the benefits of it. But they don't. Unless you taught them how to earn it on their own, at which point they don't really need it.

That said, I only support a high estate tax on wealth over a certain (high) amount. The estate tax should be an anti-aristocracy measure and not something that applies to even the professional class (e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc.) who still have to work hard for their money. It's good to be able to give the family home to your kids. It's not good to be able to ensure they never have to work a day to enjoy all the privileges of wealth.

Taxing consumption disproportionately hits the lower and middle classes, who consume a greater percentage of their income than do the upper classes. It puts the burden of shouldering the government on those least able to afford it. In that manner it would act as a strong barrier to income mobility by preserving wealth for the wealthy and taking it most from the least wealthy.

Isn't it always grand on the internet when someone posts a joke, and then someone responds with the same joke, only phrased more obviously for his fellow, less subtle readers to laugh at and congratulate themselves for being smarter than the original poster who obviously wasn't witty enough to make the same goddamned joke first.

Yeah, that's always awesome.

Oh, please -- put down the flag.

As an American Apple user, I hate the fact that Apple doesn't use the same charger / data cable as everyone else and that, worse, my iPhone 5 isn't even compatible with my iPhone 3 charger. It's an overpriced, short POS that has a pointless chip in it to prevent third party cables from working properly. It's also not water-resistant (which is great in case you accidentally drop the end of it into a glass of water on your desk). All in all, Apple's new charger has significantly worsened my enjoyment of the phone.

So, I'm all for standardization on something nearly everyone else has agreed is sane. Apple gets no free pass for being American with me.

Same reason each country has a standard railroad track, a standard power outlet, etc. Letting industries decide on mutually incompatible standards largely serves to lock in consumers and also creates great inefficiencies in the economy due to incompatbility. Standardization would allow business like cafes & airports to offer charging solutions that fit all their customers, and it would produce less physical waste.

Because, of course, there couldn't possibly be a technological solution to this. It's only "do it cheap" or "I hate America."

Not really. UV vision is pretty common among insects & birds. Additionally, it's pretty common in lizards and fish that live close to the surface. And don't get us started on the ridiculously overengineered eyes of the mantis shrimp.

Among mammals, it's common in nocturnal species like mice & bats, and we've started to notice it in reindeer and have theorized that it might be common in snow-adapted species.